News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...

[El Gato]

The principle of de facto officer doctrine certainly does have its merits, in that it mitigates the potential for chaos in government; the ramifications to the contrary are collosal

Indeed they are. Suppose a President lost an election, or finished a second term, but got his party's nomination anyway, had his minions declare he had won the ensuing election and refused to step down. Would any acts he took as "de facto" President still be valid under because of the "de facto officer doctrine? I'd sure as h#)) hope not. But the situation of an ineligible person acting as def facto President is not much, if any, different. Whether ineligible due to Art II section 1 clause 5, or the 22nd amendment.

I guess such situations are what the Second Amendment is about.

[EternalVigilance]

I think he did great.

[freekitty]

Get real.

[XenaLee]

You’re right. My mistake.

[M Kehoe]

Damn birthers.

LOL. Let the games begin.

"Discovery," is such a wonderful word.

5.56mm

[TheBigJ]

Bottom line, this country is going to suffer, believe it.

I wouldn’t be getting in ulcer for things you can’t control.

There’s a large population that rejects this country’s founding and respect for it’s Constitution by ignorance or on purpose, and as a result, they deserve what’s coming to them. This isn’t even political, it’s Constitutional. Blatant incompetence, corruption to go around.

When it’s discovered that Zero wasn’t born in the U.S. the media and many will say “it doesn’t matter.” Because this is all about power, Zero won’t be stepping down, he will cause a major catastrophe first. Expect it. We’ve already seen blatant signs of pyschopathic narcissism, lying and corruption that makes Clinton look like a choir-boy.

But fret not. History has proven what happens to these types of people, it’s only a matter of time; and in the process, there are many who will learn a hard lesson as well.

[freekitty]

So what do you suggest; big leader?

[XenaLee]

"I'd report you to the mods for personal attack except that I think they'd laugh so hard they might fall off their chair and hurt themselves."

Eh..yeah. They probably would...since....you seem to have no problem with that personal attack routine yourself. That and skewing others' comments INTO a ""personal attack"" on yourself, that is. But hey, why don't you give it a try anyway. Ya never know.

[roaddog727]

BUMPEROO!

[freekitty]

Since this would be a first (POTUS actually being thrown out office due to ineligibility) I am not really sure what would apply.

[freekitty]

Exactly; and I am not sure what should and should not be applied.

[Non-Sequitur]

So what do you suggest; big leader?

Something radical. Like following the guidelines of the 20th, 22nd, and 25th Amendments as well as the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. But that's just me.

[BP2]

                            

         +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.            
         |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:           
         |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:          
         |  mlo, browardchad |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='          
         |    OldDeckHand    |              (  (_)  )             
         |    Non-Sequitur   |              /`-vvv-'\             
         +-------------------+             /         \            
                 |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \           
                 |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\          
   @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW          
   \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__           
    \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================

[Non-Sequitur]

Eh..yeah. They probably would...since....you seem to have no problem with that personal attack routine yourself. That and skewing others' comments INTO a ""personal attack"" on yourself, that is. But hey, why don't you give it a try anyway. Ya never know.

In retrospect I guess I should have known better than to leave off the </sarcasm> tag.

[Frantzie]

Ahh... little Mlo needed some back up from his little pal N-S. You two amuse me. Like a clown perhaps. Do carry on.

[Non-Sequitur]

Hey Frantzie, how’s it hangin’. Still looking for answers to non-existent questions?

[raygun]

I think there's a vast difference between what you hypothetically propose and the principle upon which the de facto officer doctrine is predicated upon:

"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence."

Your scenario requires overt and deliberate subversion of the Constitution, contravening Art. 22, by the national committee of either arbitrary political party, then winning a plurality in the general election which would confer sufficient Electoral College delegate votes, subsequently the Electoral College would have to be complicit, and the certification of the votes by joint session of Congress.

Your analogy IMHO is a flight of fancy bordering the other side of delusional. IOW, that sort of crap aint happening on this world. What you suggest would be tantamount to a political coup and the most remote possibility of success would be dependent upon the force of the U.S. military enforcing martial law.

[Frantzie]

Still incapable of answering simple legal questions?

Carry on. You amuse me.

[OldDeckHand]

"Dang! It looks like you're right! Bummer. You just ruined my day. It was the only hope I had, and you've just pulled the rug out from under me."

It's OK, Abe. You still knocked it out of the park with that whole Gettysburg thing.

[Frantzie]

You are incapable of answering simple legal questions - so you have no clue what you are talking about.

Carry on though - you amuse me. Like a clown.